Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Players: Europe (none / 0)
I really agree with this comment.  Some of the recent above discussion has a focus on America has a hidden agenda; discussions such as we are having can't be believed.

It's just a way of "kicking the can down the road"--ignoring what are clearly problems, and putting others who see them as real problems in the position of feeling they have to act.

IMHO, that is a road to another Iraqi style disaster.

by wchurchill on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 02:33:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Players: Europe (none / 1)
what "hidden" agenda?  it seems very public and frankly expressed.  documents from the 70's dwell on the "necessity" of US domination of middle eastern oil reserves.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Players: Europe (none / 1)
In that case, why doesn't the U.S. just take over the Middle East and be done with it? Why all the fooling around and wasting money with building electricity systems and trying to set up elections and negotiating with guys like Ahmadinejad and all that other troublesome stuff? It would be a lot easier to just round up all the locals and put them in a big holding camp out in the desert for 50 years or so, until the oil is all gone. Wouldn't even need nukes, since pretty much everybody lives in a few cities.

In fact, why bother? Why not just go down to Venezuela and do it there? And Canada.

I guess America is just too soft these days--and hopelessly inefficient at building an empire.

by asdf on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 01:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Players: Europe (4.00 / 2)
Certainly asdf can snark with the best of them.

However, the question can be plausibly answered.

The US is not a totalitarian state and on top of that it thrives on trade, rather than internal production.

Further, this has only really been a unipolar world for about 15 years now. So it's not as though for most of the period of US strength there has been an opportunity to act in a brazenly unjust manner.

To detail a bit: US politicians are held in check by the preferences of their electorate, who are generally decent enough not to believe rounding up locals to steal their oil is wholly just, and also don't like boys coming home in body bags.

On top of this, the dependence on trade means that world opinion of an event of such magnitude matters. (Again, this is linked to democracy. Economic sanctions from around the world on US actions are likely to lead to people losing political power due to economic instability.)

Finally, it is only since the end of the Cold War that the US could conceive of acting in the manner you advocate without risking Cold turning into Hot. The psychology of establishments takes time to change. The US top brass has spent 50 years growing and defending it's empire assets through local proxies. We shouldn't expect a policy sea change without evidence of a sea change in the top brass. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. have been part of the defense industry-government merry-go-round since Nixon's time at least. They come up with the odd new idea, but like all of us are unlikely to overturn the superstructure of beliefs they have worked in all their lives.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 02:58:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gnomemoot 0: Iran - what is the problem? | 194 comments (194 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: